Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > General Adirondack Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-02-2013, 01:00 PM   #21
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
And for those of you on Facebook, we have a say-no-to-NYCO page set up:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-...43671509045152
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2013, 05:53 PM   #22
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,543
Good points. Thanks, Bill.
dundee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 12:13 AM   #23
JerseyHighlander
Member
 
JerseyHighlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New Jersey Highlands
Posts: 143
First. Corporations aren't to be trusted. EVER. Just by the fact that politicians are supporting it, it can't possibly be good or honest.

Second. How would it read if this went through. - Forever Wild! (Well, not really forever...) No thanks. I guess some aren't clear on the definition of "Wilderness"

Take it from someone who lives (is trapped in) in the land of endless sprawl. You open a door like this, you'll never get it closed again.
JerseyHighlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 09:46 AM   #24
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Dear ADK,


This is an insult to conservation advocacy.


ADK's support of the NYCO amendment is nothing short of a betrayal of Article XIV and the "forever wild" concept.


I was present when the conservation committee voted to support the NYCO amendment in May 2012. After a previous meeting in which many members were upset that such a proposal was even being brought forward, the committee changed its mind when the executive director said that supporting the land exchange might inspire state and local leaders to respond in kind with support for the Essex Chain. Therefore ADK's support for the NYCO amendment is politically motivated, pure and simple.


Prop 5 is employment-neutral, because no jobs will be either created or lost on Election Day. NYCO's ability to maintain its workforce over the long term will depend more upon market conditions and the demand for its product. Prop 5 carries no guarantees whatsoever that NYCO will be able to sustain its workforce for a longer period of time; this is merely a good-faith assumption on the part of its supporters.


Prop 5 will be detrimental to the Jay Mountain Wilderness rather than beneficial. Lot 8 is part of the core wilderness area, serving as a buffer between the central mountains and the existing mine. Lot 8 is what makes the Jay Mountain Wilderness feel like a wilderness. So the subtraction of Lot 8 is much more than a simple mathematical expression--it diminishes and impairs the wilderness. On the other hand, the proposed new lots are all very much peripheral in nature, closer to the roads than to the mountains. It is unlikely that many of these lots will qualify as wilderness additions, and none will replace the buffering qualities of Lot 8.


Prop 5 could lead to the obliteration of Lot 8. If the test bores reveal that wollastonite is present, this will result in the removal of its entire biotic community and the pulverizing of its bedrock. Assuming the long-term health of the company and its ability to fulfill commitments in future decades, NYCO will "backfill" Lot 8, re-contour the surface, and plant trees--in other words, seedlings on top of a landfill where now we have wilderness. This can at best be no more than an imperfect man-made attempt to recreate a natural environment. With the bedrock reduced to gravel, Lot 8's drainage patterns will be permanently altered, and the biotic community that returns will reflect a drier landscape that is unable to retain water. In a conservationist's calculus, these negative benefits far outweigh any potential benefit realized by the land exchange.


Prop 5 will set an example for future amendments in precisely the same way that Perkins Clearing was cited numerous times as an example for NYCO--and the way that Whiteface served as an example for Gore and Belleayre. It sets the acceptable exchange rate for which any boring part of the Forest Preserve can be culled and traded for something more "fun."


Therefore on this day I am ashamed to be an ADK member. Your advocacy does NOT represent my firm convictions that Prop 5 is short-sighted and extremely detrimental to the long-term legal viability of the Forest Preserve. Because of your desire to sustain access to the governor's office--and the photo ops that come with it--I am now forced to spend my own time and money to fight Prop 5.


You have done badly, ADK. Very badly.


Sincerely,


Bill Ingersoll

ADK Conservation Committee

ADK Iroquois Chapter Conservation Chair
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 04:08 PM   #25
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuctTape View Post
... Right now it is just one trade, what next? After a few more "good deal" trades, someone (likely a business person with commercial interests) will say "hey, instead of having to amend the Constitution every time for each of these trades, lets just amend the constitution to allow it all the time and save everyone all the trouble." After that will be the epiphany to "lease the land to commercial interests that way NYS doesn't lose the land and still makes some money off of it."

Do not be deceived, this is the ultimate goal. They to know repeal of Article XIV will not happen all at once so the strategy is to chip away at the edges until "it makes sense" to the masses. Then they will strike. This proposition is the first chip at the edges of Article XIV.

You have been warned. Vote NO on Prop 5.
Duct Tape, the issue addressed in this commentary from a few years ago is precisely what would come next: land banking.

http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/20...ic-policy.html

A few years ago, NYCO-sponsor Betty Little proposed a constitutional amendment that would create a "land bank." It's by no means a new concept; there was one decades ago that allowed DOT to use a small amount of Forest Preserve when they were creating and realigning the state highways.

However, Betty Little's land bank was to be a program where parts of the preserve that had little recreational value--but potential development value to local towns--could be sold. The proceeds would be used to buy new state land elsewhere. So rather than an amendment specifically targeted at NYCO, there could be a single "umbrella" amendment that covered a range of projects.

I had forgotten about this, and wished I had remembered it earlier. But this is the next amendment for which NYCO could set the example.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 04:12 PM   #26
Gregory Karl
Member
 
Gregory Karl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuctTape View Post
My second issue is the principle. We, NYS, if the passage of this amendment goes through, point ourselves towards a slippery slope in which we begin to trade our wild lands to commercial interests. This is the slippery slope towards eliminating Article XIV and the forever wild clause in its entirety.
A slippery slope on which the state trades at a 1:7 ratio, rather uninteresting plots next to existing mines (and on a temporary basis, at that) for ecologically valuable and wonderful hiking terrain? Get out the toboggan! Wheeeee!

Nothing is changed about the constitutional procedure for getting land swaps on the ballot. No new law is made. Therefore, by definition, no precedent setting issue in a legal sense.
Gregory Karl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 06:13 PM   #27
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory Karl View Post
Nothing is changed about the constitutional procedure for getting land swaps on the ballot. No new law is made. Therefore, by definition, no precedent setting issue in a legal sense.
Precedent does not imply that a new law is made, or that procedure is changed.

It implies that a past action will serve as an example for a future action.

In this case, precedent implies that if you allow this corporation to acquire forever wild lands, then future corporations may consider doing the same thing ("hey, NYCO got away with it, so we should try too!") and that they will be able to point to this situation when they make their case ("hey, you let NYCO do it, so you should let us do it too!").

Some people are ok with that, some think that the constitutional process provides an adequate level of protection from this becoming routine. Others think it is a dangerous can of worms to open and that we shouldn't take the risk.
Holdstrong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 06:51 PM   #28
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,679
It's also worth noting that it takes a constitutional amendment to remove any land from the forest preserve, which involves TWO votes of the legislature, AND a popular vote. Whereas, to add land to the forest preserve, none of this is required, we simply do it by fiat (as in the recent Finch Pruyn land purchase, almost a thousand times bigger than the NYCO land.

So it seems to me that if there's any "slope" at all, it goes in the opposite direction from what some are suggesting.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 08:16 PM   #29
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post
It's also worth noting that it takes a constitutional amendment to remove any land from the forest preserve, which involves TWO votes of the legislature, AND a popular vote.........

So it seems to me that if there's any "slope" at all, it goes in the opposite direction from what some are suggesting.
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.
__________________
Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!
Commissionpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 08:25 PM   #30
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
I think that the truth of the matter is that the forest preserve is gaining 7 1/2 times what its giving up. There is no risk of this deal creating a plethora of other deals in the making. This deal is very analogous to the Whiteface Mountain land swap, and the Perkins Clearing/International Paper land swap in 1979. Neither of those deals caused a rush of constitutional amendments, and suggesting that this particular deal is somehow materially different and seperate in spirit than those other deals is just plain misleading.

Since we are all seemingly tossing out our credentials with regards to our opinions in this matter, here are my meager 'qualifications' which I feel are suitable enough for me to have an opinion posted pubicly for others to see.

-Lifelong Adirondack Park resident including attending both high school and college inside the Blue Line.

-NYS licensed guide #5180.

-Adirondack 46er.

-McMartin Lean-to Adoptor.

-Cold River ADK Chapter member, and past ADK Fall Outing committee member (2012).

-Registered New York State voter.


*****PLEASE NOTE: This post was edited by Site Admin. and does not reflect my true feelings.
__________________
Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!

Last edited by Commissionpoint; 11-03-2013 at 10:22 PM..
Commissionpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 10:22 PM   #31
JerseyHighlander
Member
 
JerseyHighlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New Jersey Highlands
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory Karl View Post
A slippery slope on which the state trades at a 1:7 ratio, rather uninteresting plots next to existing mines (and on a temporary basis, at that) for ecologically valuable and wonderful hiking terrain?
By "on a temporary basis" you mean to say, until they are finished decimating land that can never ever be returned to it's present state after they finish open pit mining it? Well, not really never. I guess nature, left alone, which man seams never able to do, given several hundred years at least, might come close.

I wonder, when the ground is stripped and blown wide open, what is going to happen to the drainage coming off the adjacent mountains when the mine is that much closer? What will it do to the water quality in water sheds and aquifers throughout the area?

Then, the park is getting seven times more land that is "ecologically valuable and wonderful hiking terrain". What land is that exactly?
JerseyHighlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 07:19 AM   #32
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdstrong View Post
Precedent does not imply that a new law is made, or that procedure is changed.

It implies that a past action will serve as an example for a future action.

In this case, precedent implies that if you allow this corporation to acquire forever wild lands, then future corporations may consider doing the same thing ("hey, NYCO got away with it, so we should try too!") and that they will be able to point to this situation when they make their case ("hey, you let NYCO do it, so you should let us do it too!").

Some people are ok with that, some think that the constitutional process provides an adequate level of protection from this becoming routine. Others think it is a dangerous can of worms to open and that we shouldn't take the risk.
That was my point! No, it is not easy to get things like this on the ballot, but precedents start somewhere. Maybe this will be the one, we DON'T KNOW. As in hockey, the more shots you take at the goal, the more get in. When we have people like Betty Little, a rabid anti-environmentalist, screaming abut jobs with this land swap, the more of them could pop up.
dundee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 08:41 AM   #33
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
I've posted this on the Facebook page "Save Forever Wild":

Quote:
Reasons to Vote No on Proposition 5
By Bill Ingersoll

On November 5th, New York State voters will be asked to decide the fate of Proposition 5. This is a proposed constitutional amendment that would modify Article XIV, the “forever wild” clause that protects the Forest Preserve from exploitation. “Prop 5” would authorize a land exchange in the Adirondack Park in which a company called NYCO could acquire a portion of state land in Essex County for mining purposes. This has become a divisive issue, and its fate will not be known until the results of Tuesday’s statewide elections are announced.

The subject of the amendment is a 200-acre section of the Jay Mountain Wilderness known as Lot 8, located generally east of Lake Placid. It is a corner of the Forest Preserve that would probably never have been newsworthy, except for the fact that it abuts NYCO’s existing wollastonite mine. NYCO has harvested nearly all of the mineral from the old mine, but they suspect that the wollastonite extends underneath Lot 8. Rather than closing their mine and moving to their alternate site a few miles away, they are gambling on a bid to acquire Lot 8 through a land exchange. You will be seeing this on your ballot on Tuesday because any disposal of state land in the Adirondacks requires a constitutional amendment.

This is the proposed land exchange, in a nutshell:

Upon passage of Prop 5, NYCO gets the right to drill on state land to see just how much wollastonite is really there. This determines the value of Lot 8 and drives the amount of land that must be offered in exchange. The company has lined up 1500 acres of forestland in the general vicinity of Lot 8 to offer in trade.

Even though the state would realize a net increase of 1300 acres as a result of the trade—and some people think that this benefit erases all other concerns—this Facebook page is run by individuals who think that Prop 5 is bad public policy. Here are some of the reasons why:

1) Prop 5 is employment-neutral, because no jobs will be either created or lost on Election Day. This may be the heart of the proposal, because NYCO is claiming that one of the benefits of obtaining Lot 8 is that it will be able to maintain its workforce over a longer period of time. However, there is an unspoken assumption in this claim that NYCO will continue to produce wollastonite at one consistent, plodding pace over the life of its mines; if it takes 10 years to exhaust one mine, it will take 20 years to exhaust two. But this thinking ignores the law of supply and demand. Prop 5 will increase NYCO's mineral supply, but it will of course have no bearing on the demand for its products. Demand could spike, resulting in increased production and a shorter lifetime for the Lot 8 mine, or the discovery of an alternate source could glut the market and cause demand to plummet. Prop 5 carries no guarantees whatsoever that NYCO will be able to sustain its workforce for a longer period of time, because no one can guess what future demands for NYCO's products will be, or what changes will occur to the global supply. Prop 5 will only enhance NYCO’s local supply and reduce overhead, nothing more. Claims that these two factors will lead to sustained employment are purely speculative.

2) Prop 5 will be detrimental to the Jay Mountain Wilderness rather than beneficial. Lot 8 is part of the core wilderness area, meaning that it serves as a buffer between the central mountains and the existing mine. Lot 8 is what makes the Jay Mountain Wilderness feel like a wilderness. So the subtraction of Lot 8 is much more than a simple mathematical expression of “7896 – 200” (the current size of the Jay Mountain Wilderness minus the size of Lot 8). The subtraction of Lot 8 diminishes and impairs the wilderness because the mine would extend toward the heart of the area, reducing its sense of remoteness. On the other hand, the proposed new lots that NYCO is prepared to offer in exchange are all very much peripheral in nature, closer to the roads than to the mountains. They may add acreage to the Forest Preserve, but it is unlikely that many of these lots will qualify as wilderness additions, and none will replace the buffering qualities of Lot 8.

3) Prop 5 could lead to the obliteration of Lot 8. Lot 8 is currently managed to be a place that, "in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man—where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." If NYCO finds the mineral it wants on this land, it will commence the removal of its entire biotic community and the pulverizing of its bedrock. Wollastonite is found deep in the ground, of course, and everything above it is regarded by NYCO as “overburden”—i.e. the stuff that needs to be removed to get at what you want, such as rocks, soil, and trees. Lot 8 is desirable because it contains less overburden than the company’s other site at Oak Hill. NYCO has promised to "backfill" Lot 8 when it has finished mining, which means re-contouring the surface and planting trees, and then returning the “restored” Lot 8 to the Forest Preserve—in other words, seedlings on top of a landfill where now we have wilderness. This effort can at best be no more than an imperfect man-made attempt to recreate a natural environment. With the bedrock reduced to gravel, Lot 8's drainage patterns will be permanently altered, and the biotic community that returns will reflect a drier landscape that is unable to retain water. In a conservationist's calculus, these artificial alterations far outweigh any potential benefit realized by the land exchange. Rather than a “benefit” as supporters are claiming, Lot 8 would become a scar on the landscape; and since Prop 5 contains no sunset provision—allowing NYCO to take its time with Lot 8 if there is reduced demand for its products—this scar could take generations to heal. All for the short-term interests of one company.

4) Prop 5 will set an example for future amendments because it sets the acceptable exchange rate for which the "boring" parts of the Forest Preserve can be culled and traded for something more "fun." The most troubling aspect of Prop 5 is that the promise of new lands (with supposedly better recreational value) has won support from a few watchdog groups that have traditionally been on guard against attempts to circumvent Article XIV. Fortunately this support is not universal, but it has revealed that some people do believe that some parts of public land are expendable. They reject the notion of setting a precedent because the constitutional amendment process does not work that way. But amendments do very much set examples for one another, because they indicate to what extent the public is willing to accept changes to the Forest Preserve. The passage of Prop 5 would indicate that New York voters are no longer squeamish when it comes to the thought of mining in the Forest Preserve, so long as the exchange rate is at least 7 to 1. It would not trigger a “fire sale” of new amendments, but it would set the criteria that any future amendment would need to meet. Recent experience has suggested that Adirondack politicians would like to adjust the Forest Preserve if given the chance. A few years ago, when the NYCO amendment was still being drafted, State Senator Betty Little suggested the idea of a “land bank.” This would be a process in which “excess” parts of the Forest Preserve—lands with little recreational value, but with potential commercial value—could be exchanged for land with more “recreational value.” The key difference between the land bank idea and Prop 5 is that the latter is specific to one project, and the former would be an “umbrella” amendment applicable across the park. In my opinion, Prop 5 is clearly a stepping stone toward the creation of a land bank. For Forest Preserve advocates, this would create a “use it or lose it” situation in which little-known wild lands with no constituency could become exposed to a potential sale. The idea of wilderness for its own sake would be dead.

If you have read this far and agree with my conclusions, then you by all means have my gratitude. Please like our page and share our “Say No to NYCO” meme so that other voters may also get the message!
This is part of my own personal analysis of the NYCO amendment and its ramifications. I'm well aware that not everyone agrees--which is precisely the point of airing these views. Anyone who thinks that the facts point to a different conclusion can outline their reasoning here as well.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 10:14 AM   #34
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,679
I respect the work you've put into this, Bill, but I can't agree with your analysis:

1. Speculation.
2. How is "buffer" (something that serves as a protective barrier around the outside) now equivalent to "core" (the central part distinct from the enveloping part)? If lot 8 is now the core, when will the Town of Lewis become the buffer, and we'll ask everyone to move out?
3. Of course. It's going to be mined. No one argues that this will not disrupt it.
4. Speculation.

Sorry, I'm voting yes.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 10:33 AM   #35
l'oiseau
**BANNED**
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,154
If you can consciously condemn preserved lands to destruction for the preservation of additional lands (which are apparently of no interest to the mining company and are preserved as it is), then vote yes.

If you want to preserve as much land as possible from man-made destruction, then vote no.

It is as simple as that. No essays needed.

I also feel voting no is a is vote against non-sustainable industry in the wild lands. Not all jobs are good jobs for preserved lands.
l'oiseau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 11:40 AM   #36
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
I haven't reached the point of "certainty" on this issue. If I do, then I will vote accordingly. If I do not, then I will vote NO. Voting no changes nothing, voting yes sets change in motion. If it's that important it will come up for vote again in the future.
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."™
randomscooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 12:11 PM   #37
Holdstrong
Member
 
Holdstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Keene, NY
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomscooter View Post
I haven't reached the point of "certainty" on this issue. If I do, then I will vote accordingly. If I do not, then I will vote NO. Voting no changes nothing, voting yes sets change in motion. If it's that important it will come up for vote again in the future.
This is, more or less, where I stand today as well.

I have heard reasonable and compelling arguments on both sides, and so this issue really seems like a bit of a toss up to me.

And when it comes to amending a constitution - when it comes to providing an exception to "Forever Wild" - I believe a very high standard needs to be met. For me to vote yes, it needs to be obviously, and overwhelmingly the right decision. It has to be a no-doubter. The issue has to be a slam dunk.

Prop 5 isn't reaching that level of certainty for me right now - the way Prop 4 is, for example. And so absent that absolute certainty, I just don't feel comfortable voting to amend.
Holdstrong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 02:32 PM   #38
Mavs00
I am the sith
 
Mavs00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,751
This can be a very touchy subject, so I implore all of you to be "sensitive" when crafting your arguments and rebuttals. You are welcome to state your beleifs and opinion, but PLEASE do so in a manner that does NOT denagrate other posters.

Thank you. Also, please pay particular attention to the forum rules about PM communications.

That is all.
__________________
"I can feel your anger. It gives you focus. It makes you stronger. " Supreme Chancellor

Last edited by Mavs00; 11-04-2013 at 03:50 PM..
Mavs00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 02:47 PM   #39
Zach
Last seen wandering vaguely
 
Zach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Orwell NY
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavs00 View Post
This can be a very touchy subject, so I implore all of you to be "sensitive" when crafting your arguments and rebuttals. You are welcome to state your beleifs and opinion, but PLEASE do so in a manner that does denagrate other posters.

Thank you. Also, please pay particular attention to the forum rules about PM communications.

That is all.
I have been following this discussion with great interest and intend to vote no tomorrow. I think that maybe there is a typo in the above post by our fine moderator which reverses the intended meaning of the second sentence.
Zach
Zach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 02:59 PM   #40
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavs00 View Post
You are welcome to state your beleifs and opinion, but PLEASE do so in a manner that does denagrate other posters.
Tim, yer a friggin' idiot.

Hows that for denigration?

__________________
Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!
Commissionpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.